

|
|
Grantmakers
face an almost irresistible temptation to strike out beyond
the boundaries of current grantmaking priorities and explore
new territory. It is, in part, a natural reaction to the frustration
of working with intractable, chronic issues. In part, it reflects
the allure of the new. And, in part, it comes from the understandable
impulse of program officers to carve out their own special
niches. Yet most experts, and I agree with them, advise having
a well-defined focus, to avoid being spread too thina
rifle, not a shotgun, our first president, David Rogers, used
to say.
One way we stay focused is to
think specifically about what we won't fundRobert Frosts
roads not taken. The Foundations general guidelines
include some types of grants we do not make: funding
ongoing general operating expenses, basic biomedical research,
international programs. Many topics, though important,
fall outside the work of our program teams: womens health
and occupational health, for example. When staff members are
developing specific programs and strategies, we again discuss
the kinds of projects that would not be funded under
a particular initiative, which helps clarify the logic that
our staff have employed in their planning.
The problems most foundations
are trying to alleviate are so large that progress will seldom
be possible without concentrated efforts. The Robert Wood
Johnson Foundations focus is probably narrower than
that of most other large philanthropies, because of the specificity
of our mission. Nevertheless, our staff regularly debate whether
we have become too diffuse, with our four program goals and
10 program teams. I believe such discussions are essentialhere
and elsewhereif grantmakers are to resist the relentless
centrifugal forces to which they are subject.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >>
© Copyright 2002 The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation. Click
to read our Web Policies
|
|
|



|
|